30.01.2015.
MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER.
The instant appeal is directed against the order being No. 6 dated 17.12.2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit – I in Complaint Case being No. CC/13/285 rejecting the same while passing the order after hearing a petition dated 25.09.2013 filed by the O.P. No. 1 challenging the maintainability of the complaint case.
Being aggrieved by the said order the Complainant has preferred in the appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that the Ld. District Forum, without giving opportunity to the Complainant for impleading Mrs. Dipa Sen as one of the Complainants, dismissed the complaint which is bad in law.
The Complainant filed the petition of complaint before the Ld. District Forum stating that the Complainant being satisfied with the plan and programme of the O.P. for enjoying vacation along with family members got membership of a club for the same under the guidance and maintenance of the O.Ps by paying Rs.70,000/- towards fees which the O.Ps received.
However, the Complainant found that even after lapse of a considerable period of time the O.Ps did not render any service for enjoyment of vacation as the club remained inoperational. Having been disgusted with the activities of the O.Ps the Complainant gave up the hope for enjoying vacation and asked for refund of the money, but to no avail. Hence, the Complainant filed the instant petition of complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps and praying for direction upon the O.Ps to refund the deposited amount of Rs.70,000/- with interest, to pay Rs.50,000/- for harassment, both mentally and physically along with further direction to pay Rs.10,000/- as the cost of litigation.
The O.Ps appeared and filed a petition challenging the maintainability on the ground of non-joinder of party in the complaint case since the Complainant’s wife, namely, Dipa Sen also put her signature in the Contract Form for obtaining membership, but she has not been impleaded as party to the complaint case. Considering the issue of non-joinder of party the Ld. District Forum rejected the petition of complaint.
In course of hearing of the appeal Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the Complainant is the husband of the person, namely, Dipa Sen. Therefore, the Complainant initially did not think to make her party to the complaint case. However, afterwards he was ready to implead the said Dipa Sen as party, but the Ld. District Forum did not provide any opportunity to do so. Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has reiterated that he may be given an opportunity to amend the petition of complaint and prayed for remand of the case.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondents has submitted that the Ld. District Forum rightly rejected complaint case.
Considering the submissions made by the parties and on perusal of the material on record it appears that the petition of complaint suffers from non-joinder of parties. However, the Complainant is found eager to be in the proceeding and expressed his willingness to amend the petition of complaint by adding his wife as a party. In our view due to a mere technical defect such as non-joinder of party the Complainant cannot be deprived of getting redressal of the dispute as alleged. Moreover, the C. P. Act is a benevolent legislation and the cases entertainable under this Act are of summery trial in nature and, therefore, the Complainant – consumer cannot be deprived of getting opportunity for redressal of dispute on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party.
In view of that, we are of opinion that the Complainant should get opportunity to amend the petition of complaint for the ends of justice.
In the result, the appeal is allowed on contest without cost. The impugned judgment is set aside.
The case is sent back on remand to the Ld. District Forum with direction to give an opportunity to the Complainant so that that he may implead his wife as a party to the complaint case and thereafter adjudicate the case per provision of law.
